Development and Initial Validation of the O&M VISSIT for Orientation and Mobility Specialists to Determine Service Intensity

The purpose of this study was to provide initial validation of the Orientation & Mobility Visual Impairment Scale of Service Intensity of Texas (O&M VISSIT) intended for use by orientation and mobility (O&M) specialists to determine a recommended type and amount of O&M services for students on their caseloads based on each student’s identified needs. The validity and reliability of the scale were calculated using a mixed-methods survey research design, with purposive expert sampling. The O&M VISSIT was found to be significantly valid in social and content validity and moderately valid in consequential validity. The O&M VISSIT is a moderately reliable tool to assist determine the appropriate type and amount of O&M services for all students on the O&M specialist’s caseload. Deciding the appropriate type and amount of service to recommend for each student is acknowledged to be a major challenge for teachers of students with vision impairment (TVIs) and orientation and mobility (O&M) specialists. This challenge has been a long-documented struggle for practitioners in school settings, with constraints on time caused by the myriad responsibilities of a service provider and the intricacies of student scheduling and personnel availability (Correa-Torres and Howell, 2004; Beadles, 2007; AER Division 16, 2010; Bina et al. 2010; Cmar et al. 2015). For O&M in particular, issues with determining the appropriate service type and time recommendations are further exacerbated by the scarcity of trained O&M specialists, which, along with growing caseload numbers, might reduce the frequency of instruction provided to individual students. That is, the larger the caseload, the less frequent the services to students (Mason et al. 2000; Bina et al. 2010). Wall Emerson and Corn (2006) warned that, “At a time of a severe shortage of personnel, O&M specialists must often determine which students’ needs are greatest or who would benefit the most from instruction. Years of making such decisions might affect instructors’ view of which services should be provided” (p. 332). This dilemma is problematic because, according to Wall Emerson and Anderson (2014): “Lack of consistency in determining the appropriate level of service for a given child can lead to inflated caseload sizes and ineffective services” (p. 151). According to Wolffe and Kelly (2011), a significant link exists between receipt of O&M instruction in high school and employment or enrollment in postsecondary school within two years of graduation. Riley (2000) added that the acquisition of O&M skills is “of great importance to the social and economic independence of blind and visually impaired persons” (p. 36590). This finding highlights the necessity of carefully selected service objectives designed to meet the students’ actual needs and ensuring adequate service time (Sapp and Hatlen, 2010). This finding also supports the hypothesis that O&M services generate positive outcomes for students who are vision impaired (Wolffe and Kelly, 2011). Best practices require service frequency and duration to be based on students’ needs rather Article | DOI: 10.21307/ijom-2018-003 Heather R. Munro,1,2 Shannon Darst,3 and Rona L. Pogrund2 1Stephen F. Austin State University. E-mail: hrmunro@sfasu.edu; rona.pogrund@ttu.edu; shannon.darst@ttu.edu. This article was edited by Dr Mike Steer and Dr Desiree Gallimor. 2Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX. 3Coordinator of Program for Teachers of Students with Visual Impairments, Sowell Center for Research and Education in Sensory Disabilities, College of Education, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX. Development and initial validation of the O&M VISSIT for orientation and mobility specialists to determine service intensity 12 than instructor availability (Bina et al. 2010). Cmar et al. (2015) suggested that “Instructional decisions should be based on students’ goals and needs ... not solely on external factors or availability of resources” (p. 5). Yet, as admitted by Wall Emerson and Anderson (2014) actual service levels might be determined based, at least in part, on the size of the O&M specialist’s caseload. Wall Emerson and Anderson (2014) also reported that 60% of the respondents to their O&M survey indicated having used either the Orientation and Mobility Severity Rating Scale (OMSRS) or the Orientation and Mobility Severity Rating Scale Plus (OMSRS+) to influence caseload size. The authors who developed the Orientation & Mobility Visual Impairment Scale of Service Intensity of Texas (O&M VISSIT) believe that to bring about real change in the O&M profession and in the lives of students with vision impairment, these external factors like Cmar et al.’s (2015) example of availability of resources, should not be involved in determining intensity of services. Rather, this decision should be drawn solely from the student evaluation data. These data should also address aspects of the expanded core curriculum (ECC) (Hatlen, 1996) such as independent living skills, self-determination and sensory efficiency. Data collected from an O&M evaluation should inform highstake decisions, and therefore must be thorough and accurate, affecting the resulting appropriateness, frequency, and duration of O&M service provision (Fazzi and Naimy, 2010). Every student should be given the opportunity to succeed. Successful student outcomes appear dependent on provision of a personalized blend of direct individualized instruction from the O&M specialist and appropriate support provided to all of the student’s educational team including the child’s parents/family, teachers, paraeducators, and other service providers (Huebner et al. 2004; Pogrund, 2008; Silberman and Sacks, 2007; Spungin and Ferrell, 2007; Cmar et al. 2015).